Day: November 9, 2015

What makes a country a ‘good’ country for refugee resettlement, fairly assuming their burden in the global community? Here are four countries on three continents that both quantitatively and qualitatively stand out.

Antonio Guterres has been the UN High Commissioner for Refugees for almost ten years. While he nags the western world (and particularly the US!) to take ever greater numbers of refugees, he hasn’t been able to persuade the country he once led as its Prime Minister to take more than a handful each year. In 2014 we learn Portugal took a whole 14 refugees!

With as many refugees arriving in Europe last month than all of last year, this question of where they can and should resettle is all the more urgent.What makes a country a ‘good’ country for refugee resettlement, fairly assuming their burden in the global community? Here are four countries on three continents that both quantitatively and qualitatively stand out.

With as many refugees arriving in Europe last month than all of last year, this question of where they can and should resettle is all the more urgent.

The UN goes on to say that the top 4 countries are (drum roll!):

US took 67% of the refugees resettled around the world in 2014!

If you haven’t yet had a chance to look at the State Department’s report on the Proposed Refugee Admissions for FY2016,I highly recommend it (as a matter of fact, I have to stop posting now so I have some time today to continue studying it).

In the report we learn that the US aims to take 50% of the refugees referred by the UN each year, but what a surprise, in calendar year 2014 (Table VIII p. 70) we took 67% which was 48,911 refugees!

Germany took 3,467 (4.7% of the total resettled)

Sweden took 1,497 (2.1%)

Brazil took 44 (.06%)

And, just for fun! The UNHCR Antonio Guterres is the former Prime Minister of Portugal and that country took 14 refugees in 2014! So he couldn’t convince his own home country to WELCOME more? (Portugal has promised to take 23 Syrians!)

Like this:

I don’t know where to turn this morning—already I have 5 states from which we have refugee news (see NJand Kansasso far). So, in order to get through them, here is a quick report from Wisconsin.

Why 937 says Milwaukee state legislator? Because that is the number of Jews that were reportedly turned back from America’s shores in 1939. We know that 97% of the Syrian refugees the UN is picking for us are Muslims, so it makes perfect sense doesn’t it that he is proposing 937 Muslims to make up for the mistreatment of the Jews in WWII—-NOT!

Rep. Daniel Riemer wants the State of Wisconsin to resettle 937 Syrians. Note that he is looking for federal grants for the state. Why not ask the taxpayers of Wisconsin to pony-up? Where does he think Washington gets its money—growing on trees? Or from China? Pick one!

Showing a complete misunderstanding of how refugee resettlement in America is monopolized by nine federal contractor (four of them have already staked territory in Milwaukee***), Rep. Riemer is recommending that the state of Wisconsin become a resettlement contractor for his 937 symbolic Syrians (presumably in addition to those the federal contractors are already bringing to Wisconsin).

It is now time for states such as Wisconsin to take action. That is why I have introduced a bill in the state Assembly that requires Wisconsin’s Department of Children and Families to apply for additional grant funds from the federal government to enable at least 937 additional displaced Syrian refugees to resettle in Wisconsin.The bill already has Republican and Democratic legislative co-sponsors.

If granted, Wisconsin would use these federal funds to assist in handling the initial cost of settling Syrians fleeing terror.Local religious and nonprofit organizations that receive state funds would continue their good work running existing programs to help refugees, their children and families, to resettle, find work and achieve economic and personal self-sufficiency.

Your schools will be feeling the impact first and the costs will fall on local and state taxpayers!

This is the news from the Wichita Eagleon Saturday. Refugee kids need “emotional support” and you are being asked to pay for that (whatever that is).

Gov. Sam Brownback and legislative leaders will weigh a request from the Wichita school district for extra money to help students arriving as refugees from war-torn countries.

Kansans serious about investigating the history of refugee resettlement in Kansas need to begin with Governor Brownback’s own role in encouraging it as an open-borders Republican who signed a letter last year asking for MORE refugees to be resettled in the US.

The State Finance Council, which is chaired by the governor and includes lawmakers from both parties, took no action on the district’s request for nearly $1 million to offer language and emotional support to students arriving from Somalia, Myanmar and other countries when it met in August. The council will take up the issue Monday.

Many of the students arrive with limited English skills and suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.

[….]

If the district’s request is approved, the money would go toward hiring new teachers and paraprofessionals to assist the teachers in special classrooms for students with high needs and limited English skills.

Gjerstad said refugee agencies began receiving new families in October with the beginning of the federal fiscal year. Two nonprofit groups, Episcopal Wichita Area Refugees Ministries and the International Rescue Committee, have been working with the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement to resettle families in Wichita.

Lawmakers said in August that they were sympathetic to the district’s request but wanted to wait for more information on the refugee students.

There are only a few comments. I guess Kansans being colonized aren’t as vocal as those New Jersey commenters are, here.

If so, you must research the role your governor played in promoting more refugee resettlement to America—he has a long history of involvement!

In February 2014, Governor Brownback signed a letter (here) with other open-borders Republicans and ginned-up by Grover Norquist to request MORE refugees be resettled in the US. He and the others said:

Our policies toward refugees are at the heart of our American values.

And then here we learned that during Brownback’s time in the US Senate he was all for MORE Somalis to be admitted to the US, but just not to be resettled in Kansas. Serious researchers follow links back to VDARE articles from ten years ago. (He failed to keep Somalis out of Kansas, however.)

Like this:

We told you the other daythat the owner of the shuttered Atlantic City casino—the Revel—is offering it up as a home for a massive number of Syrian refugees and now the NJ Star Ledgeris chiming in with an editorial supporting the idea.

This really isn’t worth writing about except for one thing. I spent a few minutes reading the comments and am always surprised to see how vehemently Americans are opposing the resettlement of more refugees, especially those from Syria right now. And, for the most part the commenters (141 at this time) have some understanding of the impact the program will have on their communities. Almost all oppose the idea.

So read the editorial,here. And, then below are a couple of comments that jumped out at me, and I didn’t even read them all! Go visit yourself, to see which ones strike your fancy:

646 11 hours ago
Can you imagine what impact that would have on AC’s infrastructure? More people in schools, more police services, more social welfare programs. Section 8 would probably pay for most of the tenants. That in itself could bankrupt AC.

whatevernj 7 hours ago
@Golden Tornado @Jimmytown Trash is the least of the worries. German villages along the border are being destroyedwith refugees stealing food, walking into private residences, and non-stop harassment of any female over the age of 10. No thank you.

RFC123 15 hours ago
Before setting refugees up in an Atlantic City hotel, how about getting more of the rich Persian Gulf countries (you know, the ones in the region around Syria) to take some of these refugees in? Specifically, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, and Bahrain. These countries have accepted ZERO Syrian refugees

greg102 16 hours ago
“This is not a question of practicality or physical space, but a question of our will as Americans to help a people who are in dire need.”–Congressman Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-NJ)

Accepting and housing unvetted Syrians at the Revel is NOT good for America and NOT good for Atlantic city. We should not be manipulated into taking large numbers of potentially violent and assimilation-resistant refugees with a totally alien culture into our country. It is not in our national interest –but Predident Obama has historically done little that’s in our national interest as far as I can tell. One last question for the SLEB/ Pascrell cartel: why are we hearing nothing about the Christians –true refugees that are being slaughtered in Syria –that are barred from entry into the U.S.?

Stop feeding the r-selected 17 hours ago
To quote myself from below…

THis idea has nothing to do with altruism. As you’ve noticed there are plenty of ways altruism can be used to benefit our own citizens.

Nope, this is all about importing foreigners. Have to think about and ask “why would they want to import foreigners?”

Is there something about the current US racial and cultural mix they don’t like and want to change?

If their words and deeds are any indication, the answer is a resounding YES. Your kids are in for a rough future.

Stop feeding the r-selected 18 hours ago
Just what AC needs: more unproductive poverty to further drain the welfare system, while those in favor of imposing the burden sit in their gated communities and send their kids to safe non vibrant schools.

LOL! I especially like that last bit about “non vibrant schools.” Apparently ‘Stop feeding the r-selected’ has read a bunch of the Left/No Borders propaganda about how immigrants and refugees make communities more VIBRANT. Huh? Who says?